The Struggle between an alleged _Jus Divinum Regum_, and Popular
Sovereignty.--And the Efforts now attempted to destroy our Grand
Experiment of Self-Government.--Practical Results.
With the differences of religious bodies as to dogmas of faith, this essay
has nothing to do; but so far as churches connected with any religion,
interfere with temporal governments, by mystic confraternities, that is a
topic directly within our scope. Any union of church and state must, from
these authorities, appear in opposition to the unprejudiced action of the
citizen in the government of his country.
The great struggle for political power, the contest as to the source
thereof--whether a fancied divine right (_jus divinum_) in any family, or
in an individual by anointment of a priest; or the free voice of a free
people governing themselves by framing a constitution, limiting power in
the hands of rulers, who are only their agents--is now undergoing a severe
test. Of this, however, more hereafter.
The history of England, from the days of James II.--yes, even from Henry
VIII., whose crimes form a strange contrast to his assumption of a title to
being {105} head of a church--presents a singular contest for political
power, by means of religious domination.
From the days of William of Orange, the parties in Ireland (which seems to
have formed the battleground of these contestants) have been not only
well-defined, but they have been organized in the most perfect mysticism,
into Orange men and Ribbon men. Let the days of Curran, Grattan, and of the
persecuting government tell that story. The blood of an Emmett has crowned
a noble effort with martyrdom. His last speech will be read as long as
school-books can perpetuate one of the finest efforts of oratory.
Meantime, a secret society still existed which softened down asperity, and
extended the blessings of fraternity even among those arrayed against each
other--not only there, but over the world. By its teachings and its
obligations, universal charity was inculcated. Is there an intelligent
FREE-MASON who has perused our previous pages, but what has recognised the
history of his own society from the origin of the Kabbalistae? Spread
everywhere, under whatever name, emanating from a common origin, recognised
by common principles and instruction, enforcing the study of the liberal
arts and sciences, teaching philosophy throughout the world, and the hope
of a future immortality, it has, as a mystic order, taken deep root in
every nation, but more so in republics, not having fear of an interdict, or
other religious {106} fulmination. It has not and does not interfere in
politics, nor seek political power in any shape. Like its brothers of old
under Pythagoras in Magna Graecia, it teaches philosophy, and is well
calculated to promote such education as must form true statesmen. So
catholic is its every teaching, and such are its fraternal tendencies, that
one church has placed it under ban. Throughout the world, whether among the
descendants of the ancient Magi, the Hebrew Cabbalist, the Rosicrucian, or
Templar, in the deserts of Africa, the forests of America, or on the
wide-spread ocean, the symbols of recognition are known and received. Such
have been its tendencies that spurious imitations for mere political
purposes have been frequent. The Illuminati, the Carbonari, and other
secret political societies have been supposed to be Masonic lodges. But it
is a great mistake. The Kabbalists never interfered with, or acted in
opposition to the Hebrew Theocracy. Their brothers of a later date have
never interfered with politics, even to the present day; nor have they, in
any wise, inculcated a single maxim at variance with their duty to God,
their neighbor, or themselves. They have simply preserved and obeyed the
original traditional instruction handed down to them.
Another benevolent secret society has sprung up, chiefly in the United
States, calling themselves the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. This is a
charitable confraternity, intended, mainly, to promote {107} benevolence,
aid the sick and distressed, and cultivate the warmer sympathies of our
nature. It is of modern origin, and in most things seems to be an imitation
of Free-Masonry. It has been productive of great good in the accomplishment
of its benevolent purposes. Having no leaning whatever toward politics, it
quietly pursues its mission of love.
Thus, then, we have arrived at a point where we must pause.
The summary of the past seems to be as follows:--
I. From the earliest history of the world there seems to have been an
effort on the part of those who pretended to control the consciences and
religious views of others to preserve in their own hands, the predominant
_political_ power.
1. The first government recorded is that of Nimrod. He discarded
patriarchal instruction; united tribes in cities; and formed their
combination into an empire. The Magi controlled him, and, at his death,
under the pretence of his deification, preserved his power in the
priesthood.
2. In the extension of the Magi, every great leader, or king, was one of
them; and obedient to the rules and instructions of their general, the
Hierophant.
3. When, in the assertion of popular right, Pythagoras was driven away by
Cylon, the then imperfect effort of self-government fell through. But
little understood, its then dim light faded.
4. The society of the _Kabbalistae_, part of whom {108} were afterward known
as the _Pythagorean league_, as the _Collegio fabrorum_ of Numa Pompilius,
as the _Liberi Architectonici_ of the middle ages, and as the _Free-Masons_
of the present day; this society, I repeat, never interfered in politics.
5. The Christian church was tempted to forget, that Christ's kingdom was
not of this world. And its two great branches, that of Rome and England,
were seduced into the error of seeking to obtain power through public
policy.
Rome exerted her influences through her praetorian cohorts, the
confraternities of mendicants and of Jesus--the Jesuits. Unknown, and in
silence, they were domiciliated in courts and in families, throughout all
nations; and some roamed as itinerants. The will of their general, on their
unconditional subserviency to his behest, seemed to create an almost
omnipresent power to be controlled by Rome alone. Has not the exercise of
it been exemplified in the inquisition? Was it not felt in the massacre of
St. Bartholomew? I will not stop to ask the power and control of a Madame
Maintenon, or Du Barry: nor whose influences controlled them. Does not all
history portray their one effort?
But has not the Church of England endeavored to obtain temporal power,
also, by interference in the affairs of this world, politically?
Shame! shame!! If the priesthood are honest in giving an undivided
allegiance to HIM, whom they {109} have taken an oath _only_ to serve; and
yet, whose "kingdom is not of this world;" how dare they violate that
obligation? "_Ne sutor ultra crepidam,_" &c.
But we in the United States are not better than our neighbors. Man is the
same everywhere, but for education.
And this brings us to the great, practical lesson, to which end all that
has thus far been detailed has been directed.
Americans! no matter of what nation you came, consider this lesson.
We have ignored and thrown aside the priestly fable of an anointment by a
man conferring an hereditary right to rule his brother man, by any family.
This _jus divinum regum_ is an absurdity, practically discarded by those
who assert it. What divine right has been granted either to Napoleon the
Great, or to Napoleon the little? Whence came it? By whose hands? How is it
preserved? Is not the same religious power ready to crown a Bourbon one
day, and, in spite of the hereditary _jus divinum_ already granted, crown a
Corsican (who has waded through blood to his throne) the next day; over the
very rights of the Bourbon, who relies on that _jus divinum_ as his title?
A divine right (if any) is here granted to both--to the Bourbon, and to the
Corsican. Can truth contradict itself? If there be a contradiction must
there not be error somewhere? {110}
This _jus divinum_ that began with the deification of Nimrod, is still
perpetuated though in other hands.
But we must look into this a little further.
II. Although the Theocracy in the days of Moses was of temporary duration,
and human power afterward asserted a kingly right, was that divine right
ever preserved? If divine, it is immutable. Does history show this? When
Titus conquered Jerusalem, does not Jewish history tell us the voice was
heard saying, "LET US GO HENCE?"
III. History shows, among men, two classes who have governed others:--
1. Kings, emperors, and rulers.
2. Priests and clergy, controlling the superstitious feelings of mankind;
yes, even these kings, emperors, and rulers, by mysticism.
IV. There have been throughout history two classes of secret societies.
One always endeavoring to govern and control the masses politically, by
religious mysteries, &c. The other endeavoring to persuade to the study of
science and philosophy, and trying to wean men from the mere struggle of
this world's power, to a preparation for another world, into which we must
be born spiritually, by human death, and as to which this earth is only the
school-house. And this class has not interfered in any manner with politics
in any country. {111}
This bring us to the present condition of our own beloved country at this
time.
A secret society, also political, was formed here, known as THE
KNOW-NOTHINGS. And its secrecy was about to destroy it, when that secrecy,
under the power of the press, vanished into mist.
But what was the origin thereof? And when, after gentlemen and statesmen
controlled it, and expelled its rubbish, it assumed a powerful influence,
and a new form, as an "American Party," what were the deep moving causes
which led to its prominent position?
From the days of Nimrod to the present day, all history shows an effort on
the part of a few to control temporal power, at the expense of the many.
They have always acted on the superstitions of man to accomplish this end.
But the American theory (_esto perpetua_) is, that all men are free and
equal in their political rights, when their intellect is that of control,
not of servitude; and that the people are the source and fountain of
political power. It cometh not from a priest. It is the voice of freemen
speaking and acting through their agents, whom they select.
This antagonism is now to be severely tested in coming history.
What is the source of temporal power?
Rome, England, France, and other countries, say it is from "the church,"
meaning their own particular {112} designation of a religion. That it is a
divine right communicated by priestly anointment, attended by public
ceremonies, imposing in appearance, and "_ad captandum,_" for the public
eye.
The American theory, going far beyond the bare and imperfect teaching of
Pythagoras, boldly asserts what is believed to be the true and only origin
of temporal power, the free will of a people exercised through agents of
its own selection.
For about eighty years past this first great experiment has been
successful. But that success has induced the most insidious attacks of
those who advocate the opposite policy. We must be watchful, or our
liberties will be gone. The game they now play is new in history; but, it
is one easily comprehended. It has been well said that the price of liberty
is eternal vigilance.
But two centuries since this land was the home of the savage. The Caucasian
intellect, however, has assumed its supremacy here; and the Indian,
incapable of mental culture, is gradually, but surely passing, like other
forms of animal existence, from the world.
One of the highest efforts of the human mind, is the Constitution of the
United States of America. The great principles of freemen governing
themselves, as there enunciated, must and will necessarily be attacked by
the asserters of divine right in temporal government. If our experiment
succeeds the powers of Europe must fall, or undergo an entire change. {113}
England's nobility must acknowledge, sooner or later, the equality of the
commonalty and gentry with themselves. Distinctions in France have already
gone, except as to the assertion of the power of an emperor by virtue of a
priestly coronation.
The popular masses of Europe have only displayed their first, but, as yet,
imperfect efforts to assert their political rights. It is the reflex action
of the great principle we have successfully, thus far, practised. And will
not the powers who have conquered the masses then thus far, use every
effort to destroy this experiment of ours and perpetuate thereby their own
existence? If we continue to succeed, our lesson to the world is the
death-knell of monarchy and imperial power. Foreign powers and priestly
powers are making this effort. And if we are doomed to fail, it will be by
the DISUNION their emissaries here endeavor to produce. With us, again, is
religious influence exerted. Servitude is recognised and practised in the
south. But the clergy of the north have commenced a fanatical crusade
against it. We should guard well against these influences, foreign and
domestic, now operating against us.
As a part of the history of the times, it may be proper to give the rise
and progress of the so-called order of "Know-Nothings." The plan of the
organization was conceived by a gentleman of the city of New York, who, in
1849, prepared and embodied into a system, a plan for uniting the American
{114} sentiment of the American people throughout the United States. It was
meant as a combined resistance, on the part of the native American
population, to foreign and papal influence in this country. The progress of
the plan was so slow in its development, that at the end of two years, the
number of members uniting in the organization did not exceed thirty. In
1852 the plan was examined by a few gentlemen connected with the Order of
United Americans, another secret and American organization, but not
directly political or partisan in its aims and objects. A society was
formed, and forty-three members signed their names to it, and from that
small beginning was formed a body of native Americans which, in a year or
two after, exceeded, in the state of New York alone, two hundred thousand
members. This state organization soon extended its ramifications all over
the country, and is now known as the American party. It has held three
national conventions, one in Philadelphia, one at New York, and one in
Louisville, and is now no more of a secret party than either of the two
great parties opposed to it: the national conventions having abolished all
secret meetings, and the state conventions or councils having generally
concurred in this abolition of all oaths and all forms of obligation but
those of personal honor and mutual good faith.
The ban of secrecy had made it, doubtless, an object of suspicion. Its
adversaries hurl at it these {115} unfortunate antecedents. But now all
secrecy has been abolished, and the party claims to assert only, the great
principle of an INTELLIGENT SELF-GOVERNMENT. They recognise the secret and
insidious influences of the Jesuit, and deprecate it. They call attention
to it, and to its increasing importance in this valley; but still, in the
spirit of liberty, leave the Jesuit free to act as he pleases. They
perceive that it is irreconcilable with freedom of thought and conscience
to surrender, unconditionally, one's own views and thoughts to the will of
any one man, whether he be at Rome or elsewhere. Still he is not interfered
with. Let him act with all freedom. You can vote for him for office or not,
as you please; and, here, we have reason to fear the secret influence
controlled alone at Rome. But, with all this freedom, it is called
"persecution" to say "I will not vote for such a man."
Let Europe send over all her emissaries, and our country tells them you
shall have the protection of our flag. You shall think, and speak what you
will, if it be not to the injury of your neighbor. But is there not a
spirit of self-preservation which demands that eternal vigilance which is
the price of freedom? Is it "proscription" in saying to another man, "I
will not vote for you?" If you can not exercise your own will, where is
your freedom? If a whig refuses to vote for a democrat is that
"proscription?"
Then, if I believe another man has surrendered his {116} own will to the
unconditional control of another, in a foreign country, can I trust
him--regarding the antecedents hereinbefore referred to?
It has been said, perhaps unjustly (at least I hope so), that the teaching
of this important society, the Jesuit, so deeply-rooted here, is, that "the
end justifies the means." If this be so, and if they can exercise over the
immigrant population from Europe the power imputed to them--all this also
controlled at Rome by the general of the order and his monitor--where can
freedom be preserved to us, if they can control a majority of votes here?
In such case our liberties are gone. In such case, they have simply adopted
and ingeniously carried out the ancient powers of the priestly Magi.
Has not an Englishman, a member of parliament, come to this country, and
lectured in New England on the abolition of slavery, expressly to aid in
creating disunion of our states?
Has not the leaven of Puritanism been excited to new action to accomplish
the same result?
Have not three thousand clergymen been induced to interfere in our temporal
and political affairs; just as in past history we find the Magi and the
priests did?
Has not the word of God been set at naught? Where the command is, "Thou
shalt not kill," are not Sharpe's rifles purchased by their command?
A clever book of fiction, written by a fanatical old {117} woman, although
untrue even as a picture of southern society, has obtained for her the
cordial entree of British aristocracy.
Then, again, regard the immense immigration from Europe. No sooner is it
possible, but we find politicians busy to influence them, and obtain their
votes. And they chiefly are opposed to slavery.
As patriots, Americans should say, you may vote. We throw around you no
restraint. Your home is our home. You are in every sense a brother, and you
shall be deprived of no privilege. But while in no manner the privileges of
a freeman should be denied to any, we must not shut our eyes to the
influences that surround us.
The Magi controlled the then known world.
The Roman church has done the same. In England a church has assumed secular
power.
In each instance it was the fabulous _jus divinum_ by which it was
accomplished.
Shall they be allowed by such influences to control and so break down our
great experiment of self-government?
Rather let those peaceful and benevolent influences prevail, which were
inculcated by societies who taught equality of rights, and peace and
charity among men.
This bring us then to the great motive power which alone can save our
country.
It is _the education of the people, and the freedom of the press, directed
through a unity of language_. {118} Through these, if properly conducted,
unless they be controlled by the hostile influences hereinbefore spoken of,
we shall be a happy and united nation.
There is no need, hereafter, of any secret teaching. Secret societies may
promote social good, but they are no longer necessary to teach either
traditional philosophy, or promote public welfare, except by benevolence.
Our duty is to encourage thought, foster public schools, create a unity of
feeling and ideas, by means of a unity of language, and a freedom of the
press.
But, in doing so, from the history of the past, can we be too careful in
guarding against the insidious influences of societies, whose antecedents
in history have proved so dangerous?
Societies having for their object a religious influence, and, thereby
intending to control political power, are dangerous. The past has shown it.
Societies of benevolence, like the Free-Masons and Odd-Fellows, have done
much good; but each member therein votes, in political matters, as he
pleases, and without control. These societies do good to all, without view
to any particular faith.
Each person that binds himself, by an obligation, to serve only HIM, whose
"kingdom is not of this world," should be debarred thereby from interfering
in the politics of this world, which he has thus forsworn.
But what are the facts? Do not even the clergy {119} of New England try to
control our government? Are they not even endeavoring to create DISUNION?
Is this not with the desire and _empressement_ of foreign power?
How far may not the praetorian bands of Rome aid therein to carry out the
result?
Can we be too guarded as to our great experiment?
The first practical result, then, indicated by past history, is, that
political power, in monarchies, empires, &c., has been under the control of
mere priestly mysteries.
The next is, that human nature is always the same, and will endeavor to
accomplish the same result.
Take the history of the past, what are we to anticipate for the future? Can
we judge but from the past? Have they not endeavored to govern Europe?
We can only allow the will of freemen to govern us. The will that has, on
oath, submitted itself to the control of a foreign power, is not that of a
_free man_, and our duty is to watch it.
Let, then, every secret become a mystery; or, a revealed secret. If it be
good to one, let it be good to all. Secure equality of rights. Collision of
mind strikes out the sparks of truth. Secure universal education by free
schools, ensuring unity of language, but leaving thought free; and the
result will be, that secrecy will have become a mystery, or revealed
knowledge to all.
Education, and the freedom of the press, are the {120} true safeguards of a
republic. Interfere with the exercise of no religion; but let no one system
of faith control your government. Frown down every effort of priests or
clergy to meddle with politics. Then shall we avoid the errors of the past,
preserve our present union, and hope for the spread of the true principles
of liberty. With education will be united true piety, each assisting the
other, no matter what the peculiar system of faith. Do away with secrecy
altogether, and let every blessing that knowledge can confer, be devoted to
public information, and the good of all. So, shall the abuses of secrecy be
done away with for ever--and it shine forth only in the holy sphere to
which it should be confined, to modesty and domestic virtue, religious
meditation and prayer, and prudence in the transactions of life.
THE END.
* * * * *
Notes
[1] St. Matt. xi. 28.
[2] Montgomery. Hymn 134. Book of Common Prayer.
[3] St. John, Gospel, iv. 44.
[4] Mal. i. 2.
[5] 1 Corinthians ii. 7-10, 12, 13, 16. Ibid. iv. 1, 5.
[6] 2 Corinthians iv. 7.
[7] 1 Corinthians xv. 22.
[8] St. Matthew xxv. 14 to 29, inclusive.
[9] St. Paul (Rom. xvi. 25, 26) defines "mystery" as above given: "Now to
him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the
preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which
was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the
scriptures of the prophets," &c.
[10] Exodus vi. 2, 3. "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am
the Lord [or JEHOVAH], and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto
Jacob, by _the name of_ God Almighty; but by my name JEHOVAH was I not
known to them."
[11] Genesis vii. 2, 3.
[12] Ibid vii. 9.
[13] Ibid xii.
[14] Ibid xx.
[15] Ibid xxvi.
[16] Exodus iv. 27, 28. "And the Lord said unto Aaron, Go into the
wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and
kissed him."
[17] Weber. Outlines of Universal History. Am. Ed., p. 4.
[18] Exodus vii. 11. "Then Pharaoh also called the wise men, and the
sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with
their enchantments."
[19] Weber. Outlines Univ. Hist. Sec. 12, p. 12.
[20] Christ. Breithaupt. Prof. &c. _De arte decifratoria._ Helmstadtii,
apud Ch. Fried. Weygand. MDccxxxvii. p. 13. "Apud veteres AEgyptios, vt ab
his dicendi initium faciamus, praeter vulgares litteras, tria adhuc alia
characterum genera celebrantur, quibus _ad mysteria sua_ condenda fuerunt
usi. Diserte hoc celebris ille stromatum conditor, Clem. Alexandrinus (lib.
v. Stromatum, pag. 563, edit. Paris, de an. 1612), docet, ita scribens. s:
'Qui docentur ab AEgyptiis primum quidem discunt AEgyptiarum litterarum viam
ac rationem, quae vocatur [Greek: epizolographike], i.e., apta ad scribendas
epistolas: secundam autem, sacerdotalem, qua vtuntur [Greek:
hierogrammateis], i.e., qui de rebus sacris scribunt: vltimam autem [Greek:
hierogluphiken], i.e., sacram, quae insculpitur, scripturam, cuius vna
quidem est per prima elementa [Greek: kuriologike], i.e., propria loquens,
altera vero symbolica, i.e., per signa significans.' Cum Clementi
conferendus est Arabs Abenephi, cuius verba ita se habent: (Scriptum hoc
Arabicum asseruatur in bibliotheca Vaticana, et typis nondum expressum est;
ab Ath. Kirchero autem in Obelisco Pamphilio saepius citatur: vnde etiam ea,
quae hic ex illo adduximus, depromta sunt.) 'Erant autem AEgyptus quatuor
litterarum genera: primum erat in vsu apud populum et idiotas; secundum
apud philosophos et sapientes: tertium erat mixtum ex litteris et symbolis
sive imaginibus: quartum vsupabatur a sacerdotalibus, erant que litterae
avium, quibus sacramenta indicabant divinitatis.' Ex quo posteriori
testamento hoc discimus, quod erudite inter AEgyptios peculiari et a
communibus litteris diuerso scripturae genere vsi sint ad doctrinas suas
propagandas. Vti exempla ostendunt, constitit hoec scriptura partim ex
certis sententiis et argutis symbolis, partim ex historicis fictionibus,
secretiori docendi methodo accommodatis." ... "Omnes, qui de rebus diuinis
tractarunt, tam Barbari quam Graeci rerum quidem principia occultaverint:
veritatem autem aenigmatibus, signisque & symbolis, & allegoriis rursus, &
metaphoris, & quibusdam tropis modisque tradiderunt."
[21] Exodus vii. 11, 12.
[22] Ibid vii. 22.
[23] Ibid viii. 7.
[24] Rheinisches Conversations-Lexicon. Koeln und Bonn. 1827. Vol. 7, page
432. "Magier, Magie, ein urspruenglich medischer Volksstamm, dem, der Sitte
des Orients zufolge, die Erhaltung der wissenschaftlichen Kenntnisse und
die Ausuebung der heiligen Gebraeuche der Religion ueberlassen war; nachher im
speziellen Sinne die Priesterkaste der Perser und Meder. Der Name kommt aus
dem Pehlei; Mag oder Mog heisst in dieser Sprache ueberhaupt ein Priester.
Als eigner Stamm der Meder werden sie ausdruecklich von Herodot erwaehnt.
Zoroaster war nicht der Stifter, sondern nur der Reformator der Magier oder
vielmehr ihrer Lehrsaetze. Daher widersetzten sich die zu seiner Zeit
vorhandenen Magier anfangs seinen Neuerungen und werden von ihm verstucht.
Nachdem sie seine Verbesserungen angenommen hatten, organisirte er auch
ihre inneren Einrichtungen und theilte sie in Lehrlinge, Meister und
vollendete Meister. Ihr Studium und ihre Wissenschaft bestand in der
Beobachtung der heiligen Gebraeuche, in der Kenntniss der heiligen
Gebetformeln oder Liturgien, mit denen Ormuzd verehrt wurde; und der bei
Gebeten und Opfern gebraeuchlichen Zeremonien. Nur durch sie konnte man
Gebete und Opfer der Gottheit darbringen; nur sie waren die Mittelpersonen
zwischen der Gottheit und den Menschen; nur ihnen offenbarte jene ihren
Willen; nur sie blickten in die Zukunft, und enthuellten sie dem, der bei
ihnen darnach forsichte. Spaeter hat man Magier ueberhaupt, Zauberer,
Wundershaeter, Goldmacher und dergl. genannt."
[25] Heeren's Politics of Ancient Greece, ch. iii., p. 65. Bancroft, Amed.,
1824.
[26] Delafield's Antiquities of America, pp. 69-71, et notae.
[27] Sir William Jones, vol. i., p. 92.
[28] Heeren's Politics of Ancient Greece: Am. ed., 1824, p. 64. Also
Bryant's Ancient Mythology, ii., 390.
[29] Encyclopaedia Americana, vol. ix. (1835), p. 118.
[30] Gen. x. 8-12. This is adopting the marginal for the text reading of
the passage, and the reason for it is this: The above is a clear historical
account of those who journeyed to the plains of Shinar, which were only the
descendants of Cush the father of Nimrod; though Asshur is said to have
gone and builded the city of Nineveh, with the others mentioned in the
text--which Asshur was one of the sons of Shem, who perhaps was blended by
marriage, or other connections, with his relations the sons of Ham, unless
it can be shown that there was one of that name in Ham's descendants as
well as Shem's son. It was something particular (if correct) that Moses
should bring in Asshur into his account of Ham's issue, because he was very
strict in giving such relations of Japheth and Shem in their own places.
Would Noah, who was so much disgusted at his son Ham as to curse him,
permit the children of his other sons, whom he blessed, to have any
communication with his children? Bishop Cumberland, in the last century,
took some pains to unravel this, and concluded that the marginal
translation in our bibles is the right one--that in the text being, "Out of
that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh", &c.; that in the margin,
"And he [Nimrod] went out of that land into Assyria"--for Asshur generally
in scripture signifies _the Assyrian_, excepting only in the genealogies:
and in support of this he brings forward many authentic testimonies. (See
Parsons's Remains of Japheth, p. 15: London, 1767.)
[31] Encyclopaedia Americana, title "Mysteries," vol. ix., p. 118.
[32] Deut. xviii. 10.
[33] Livy, iv., c. 22.
[34] 1 Sam. xxviii. 19.
[35] Eccles. xlvi.
[36] Lib. v., c. 92.
[37] Isaiah xxix. 4; also viii. 19.
[38] Alcestis, 1127.
[39] Oedipus, Act iii., 530.
[40] See Rufinius, i., 155.
[41] Phars., vi., 670. This writer proposes hereafter to publish an essay
on the intercourse between the living and the dead, as connected with
natural magic, even to the present day.
[42] Lib. i., El. ii., 45.
[43] Heeren. Politics Anc. Greece; Am. Ed., p. 68. See also page following.
[44] Rees' Cyclop. vol. vii. voc. "Chaldean Philosophy."
[45] Daniel ii.
[46] The true God, JAH, was God over the false deities, Baalim.
[47] Daniel v. 6, 7.
[48] Acts vii. 23.
[49] Disq. Hist. de variis modis occvlte scribendi, Helmstadt. MDccxxxvii.
pp. 23-26. "Illud memorandum, quod Kabbalistarum antiquiores etiam ex
figura quatuor linearum, quae inuicem sese intersecant, & in medio quadratum
efficiunt, occultum scripturae genus excogitarint sequentem in modum. In
singulis sectionibus tres collocant litteras a dextra ad sinistram. Quando
igitur primam extribus intelligunt, figuram sectionis istuis, in qua
reperitur, cum vno puncto scribunt; si alteram, eandam figuram cum duobus
punctis; si tertiam, rursus eandem cum tribus punctis."
[50] "Illorum philosophia sublimis, quam _Kabbalam_ vocant, diuersas sub se
complectitur species, quarum quaedam huc pertinent. In famossissimo illo
libello magico Rasiel, quem Kabbalistae in magna veneratione habent, tria
imprimis secreta alphabeta leguntur, quae a communi Ebraicarum litterarum
forma & ductu in multis abeunt. Primum vocatur scriptura coelestis; alterum
scriptura angelorum sive regum; & tertium scriptura transitus
fluvii.--_Disq. Hist._ &c., _ibidem._
[51] Herm. Von der Hardt, celeberrimus aetatis nostrae philologus, duorum
etiam singularium alphabetorum meminit, quibus Judaei in amuletis suis
conficiendis utuntur. Primum est, si proxima semper pro proecedente
substituitur littera, nimirum [Hebrew: B] pro [Hebrew: '], [Hebrew: G] pro
[Hebrew: B] & sic porro. Hoctegere dicuntur confessionem suam de vno vero
Deo, quam quotidie mane & circa vesperam recitant, & de qua sibi
persuadent, quod effica cissimum contra idololatriam proesidium sit, quo
quasi proemuniantur, ne a veritate ad falsam religionem desciscant. Alterum
alphabetum occultum in eo consistit, quod ordine elementorum in uerso
vltimam litteram [Hebrew: T] cum prima [Hebrew: '], & hanc cum illa
vicissim permutent, & sic etiam reliquas: quam inversionem [Hebrew: 'TBSH]
dicere moris est. Ex hoc maiusculis litteris in nobilioribus amuletis
conspicuum symbolum [Hebrew: MTSPTS] conficiunt, quod nihil iterum aliud,
quam nomen Dei [Hebrew: YHWH]. HIERONYMUS, non incelebris primae ecclesiae
pater contendit (hereinafter quoted) prophetam _Jeremiam_ hoc scribendi
genere vsum fuisse, &, ne regem Babyloniae adversus Ebraeos irritaret, pro
rege [Hebrew: BBL] dixisse [Hebrew: SHSHK]. Quin etiam sunt inter Judaeos,
qui verba illa apud Danielem [Hebrew: MN' MN' TQL WPRSYN], quae super caenam
regis Belsazaris e pariete per miraculum ad stuporem omnium prodibant,
eodem modo scripta fuisse, atque iccirco hanc artificiosam litterarum
transpositionem a Deo ipso primam originem suam trahere existimant. Sed
incerta hoec & transeunda.
[52] Tom. iv. Oper. comment. in Jerem. cxxv., 26, p. 286, edit. Coloniens.
de an. 1616.
[53] See Conf. Lud. Henr. Hillerus, in praefat. mysterii artis stenographicae
nouissimi Vlmae an. 1682 editi.
[54] Breithaupt, Disq. Hist., p. 25, notis.
[55] 2 Chron. i. 12.
[56] Ezra vii. 1-6.
[57] Heb. ix. 4: and hereto agree Abarbanel on 1 Kings viii. 9, and R. Levi
Ben Gersom.--Prideaux Conn. i. 297.
[58] Deut. xxxi. 26: Or, as others interpret it, "by the side of the ark."
_Mittzad_. 1 Sam. vi. 8. 2 Kings xxii. 8. Prideaux i. 297.
[59] Prideaux i. 297.
[60] Vide Buxtorfii Synagogam. c. 14.
[61] 2 Maccabees ii.
[62] 2 Chron. xxxv. 3.
[63] Prideaux i. 303-'4. It were well to call to the reader's attention
here, the remarkable subterranean discoveries made this year (1856), and
still going on in Jerusalem, under the Austrian authorities there.
[64] Prideaux i. 285.
[65] Vol. i., Connex. pp. 383, 384.
[66] Isaiah xlv. 5-7.
[67] Prideaux, Con. i. 389.
[68] Page 25.
[69] Prideaux i. 338-'9.
[70] Plato in Alcibiade i. Stobases, p. 496. Clem. Alex. in Paedagogo i. p.
81.
[71] Prideaux Con. i. 395.
[72] Cicero de Divinatione, l. i. Philo Judaeus de spec. leg. Plutarch in
Artaxerxe.
[73] Prideaux i. 404-'5.
[74] See page 21, antea.
[75] Heeren, Politics Anc. Greece, p. 292.
[76] Remains of Japheth, 136.
[77] A bad way to extirpate error. Education, reason, and piety will meet
error openly.
[78] 2 Phil. ii. 9, 10.
[79] Matthew xv. 2, 3.
[80] Mark vii. 5-9.
[81] Coloss. ii. 8.
[82] 2 Thess. iii. 6, 7.
[83] Acts xx. 7, 8.
[84] John xx. 19.
[85] Neander, Gen. Hist. of Christ. Rel. &c., p. 98.
[86] Brev. Rom., p. 251. Lectio iij. infra Hebd. quartam Quadragesimae.
"Audistis grande mysterium. Interroga hominem: Christianus es? Respondet
tibi: non sum. Si paganus es, aut Judaeus? Si autem dixerit, non sum: adhuc
quaeris ab eo, Catechumenus, an fidelis? Si responderet tibi, Catechumenus:
inunctus est, nondum lotus. Sed unde inunctus? Quaere, et respondet. Quaere
ab illo, in quem credat? Eo ipso quo Catechumenus est, dicit, In Christum.
Ecce modo loquor et fidelibus et catechumenis. Quid dixi de sputo et luto?
Quia verbum caro factum est; hoc catechumeni audiunt: sed non eis sufficit
ad quod inuncti sunt: festinent ad lavacrum, si lumen inquirunt."
[87] Brev. Rom. p. 652. Festa Maji. Lectio viii. "Si ergo Nicodemus de
illis multis erat qui crediderunt in nomine ejus, jam in isto Nicodemo
attendamus, quare Jesus non se credebat eis. Respondit Jesus, et dixit ei:
Amen, Amen dico tibi, nisi quis renatus fuerit denuo, non potest videre
regnum Dei. Ipsis ergo se credit Jesus, qui nati fuerint denuo. Ecce illi
crediderant in eum, et Jesus non se credebat eis. Tales sunt, omnes
Catechumeni: ipsi jam credunt in nomine Christi, sed Jesus non se credit
eis. Intendat et intelligat charitas vestra. Si dixerimus catechumeno:
credis in Christum? Respondet, credo, et signat se cruce Christi: portat in
fronte, et non erubescit de cruce Domini sui. Ecce credit in nomine ejus.
Interrogemus cum: Manducas carnem filii hominis, et bibis sanguinem filii
hominis? Nescit quid dicimus, quia Jesus non se credidit ei."
[88] 1 Corinth. iii. 1, 2.
[89] 1 Peter ii. 2.
[90] Hebrews v. 12-14.
[91] Hebrews vi. 1.
[92] Matt. x. 5, &c.
[93] John xviii. 36.
[94] Llorente, Hist. Span. Inq. London. 1827.
[95] Enc. Brit. xv. 674.
* * * * *
Corrections made to printed original.
p. 17. "Pharaoh, king of Egypt": 'Pharoah' in original. Also in Note 18.
p. 44. "more easily be employed": 'he' (for 'be') in original.
ibid. "the human mind is an emanation": 'humid' (for 'human') in original.
p. 49, diagram. Actual Hebrew letters in original. mem and tet are
transposed, kaph and vav look just like resh. * = final forms.
p. 52, note "54". Footnote marker missing, inserted in what seems to me the
most likely place.
p. 67. "kings should be subject to the laws": 'king' (ungrammatically) in
original.
p. 72. "[Greek: episkopos] or bishop. [Greek: episkokos] in original.
p. 98. "All are bound to obey him implicitly": 'implicity' in original.
Note 20. "Christ. Breithaupt": 'Breithaurpt' in original. "MDccxxxvii": MD
in apostrophus form in text. So also in note 49, where an apostrophus is
put wrongly for the cc.
Notes 68, 74. The page numbers omitted in the original.
End of Project Gutenberg's Mysticism and its Results, by John Delafield